Standing Committee D

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Clause 14 - Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 11, in 
clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert— 
 '( ) a body which— 
 (i) represents those who, in relation to any such area, are responsible for, or interested in, matters relating to the protection of children from harm, and 
 (ii) is recognised by the licensing authority for that area for the purposes of this section as being competent to advise it on such matters,'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 15. 
 Clause 143 stand part. 
 Clause 151 stand part.

Kim Howells: I was about to sum up. I shall be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wants to get to other business on the agenda. I apologise to the Committee for not making available the guidance that several hon. Members have requested. I assure them that it will be issued soon, as the latest meeting of the working group on children's interests took place yesterday afternoon. We are working hard on such matters.
 The hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill is silent about the access of children to premises. In the first instance, the applicant for a licence will have to decide whether he wishes to allow children on to the premises. That will be shown in his application. The application will then be notified to the responsible authorities, and the experts—which, if our amendment is accepted, will include child protection agencies and the police—will make representations. The licensing authority has a statutory obligation to have regard to the guidance, and it must provide written reasons for departing from it that can be challenged.

Malcolm Moss: Can the Minister tell us when we will receive the guidance notes, so that we can use them as a basis for drafting amendments for clauses 143 and 151?

Kim Howells: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date, but I assure him that it will be as early as possible. Yesterday afternoon's meeting with the working group on children's interests was very
 productive. I shall try to get him some information shortly.
 An hon. Member asked for examples of premises to which it is reasonable to expect children to have access, such as cafes, restaurants, certain pubs and some hotels. A wedding between two 16 or 17-year-olds could pose the problem of newlyweds being barred from their own wedding reception. Cinemas and theatres are also important. 
 The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) spoke about children and operating schedules. If a licensee does not wish to admit unsupervised children, he or she will not have to say anything about the steps that they would take to promote the protection of children from harm. All that they will need to say in the operating schedule is that they do not propose to admit children. It is as simple as that. We have had a fair discussion on the matter, so I hope that the Committee will accept the Government amendments.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for that short but helpful contribution. We look forward to receiving the guidance as soon as possible—at the end of the recess would be perfectly acceptable, so that we have time to work on the matter when we return. Some issues need further discussion, but we can approach those from a different angle. This is a vexed subject, but we must attempt to ensure that children are protected at all times. We shall not oppose the Government's amendments.
 Amendment agreed to.

Mark Field: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert— 
 '( ) the principal litter authority for the area;'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 182, in 
clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert— 
 '( ) the health authority responsible for ambulance services for the area in which the premises are situated;'.
 Amendment No. 183, in 
clause 14, page 9, line 14, at end insert— 
 '( ) the authorities responsible for safety and rescue at sea (where the premises are a seagoing vessel);'.

Mark Field: Amendment No. 122 adds to the list of responsible authorities
''the principal litter authority for the area''.
 I am sure that the Minister is aware that the city of Westminster won the title of Britain's cleanest city at the annual awards ceremony of the British Cleaning Council, which was held in Birmingham a fortnight ago. That will undoubtedly elicit great congratulations from him. Westminster city council has overall responsibility for cleaning, although it contracts out its refuse collection function. 
 The Bill as it stands—following consideration in the House of Lords—will allow local authorities to consider the impact of a licence application on matters such as public order, noise, health and pollution, but those are by no means the only 
 impacts of licensed premises on local quality of life. A street cleansing authority should be able to make a relevant representation on or objection to a licensing matter under clause 14. 
 I had hoped that the Government amendment allowing the local planning authority to make representations or objections would extend that far, but it encompasses only matters covered by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In other words, a local planning authority would have quite a narrow focus for its objections to a licensing application, and that would not include the full range of activities undertaken by a litter authority. That is the main reason for our amendment. 
 Let me put the matter in context. The level of night-time activity in the west end of London has increased significantly over the past decade or so. That is clear to anyone who was familiar with London's nightlife in the 1980s. The Minister may slightly predate that period, as I recall his heyday in the Hornsey college of art during the great student unrest of 1968, so he would not recognise the current state of matters in the west end of London. 
 As recently as 1986—merely 17 years ago—there were only 17 licensed night cafes in the city of Westminster. By 1992—barely a decade ago—that figure had risen to 80, and today there are 158 licensed night cafes. There has also been a significant growth in the number and capacity of premises that are licensed for liquor and entertainment. As I mentioned, centres of night-time entertainment such as Leicester square and parts of Soho are thronged with people well into the early hours of the morning. As a consequence, far more night-time litter and refuse is generated, and at the same time the environment has become one in which it is harder to provide cleansing and refuse collection services. 
 I spend a lot of my time in my constituency—and I have rather more excuse than the Minister for doing so. At 8.15 last Saturday morning, I decided, partly with duty in mind, to head over to Soho and Covent Garden. The clean state of the streets was very evident. Five or six hours earlier, they would have been full of litter—general refuse such as bottles, cigarette packets and containers from fast food outlets. Westminster city council and, more importantly, the contractor do a terrific job as the local litter authority. 
 The standards that the city of Westminster aspires to achieve are set out in the leaflets published for every ward. They stipulate the hours during which street cleansing is carried out on a street-by-street basis. During those hours, the contractors are supposed to maintain the streets to what is described as a grade A standard—in other words, to keep them entirely free of litter. If the condition of a street falls below that, the contractor is obliged to attend within an hour and restore it to the full standard. That standard applies in much of the west end 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a level of service that is considerably in excess of what is required under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 
 That standard is probably replicated in many other large towns and cities that experience stress problems, particularly during the summer time. I accept that there are some practical limitations on the achievement of consistently high street cleansing standards in a busy metropolitan area. It has long been recognised that, in certain parts of Westminster at certain times of day, the sheer density of people is such that it is physically impossible to maintain a thorough cleansing regime. It then becomes especially important that the contractors can return to the scene, once the density of people decreases, to restore an acceptable standard of cleanliness. 
 Those conditions, long recognised in some of the busier shopping streets, are now also experienced in parts of the west end at night. At certain times of the year, parts of the west end, including Leicester square, and the busier streets of Soho, are so thronged with people that it is difficult or impossible to maintain them to grade A standard. Moreover, given the narrowness of some of the streets and courts in central London, it would be inappropriate to use mechanised equipment there. 
 Manual sweeping is rendered more difficult by the crowds at late hours of the night or, more accurately, the early hours of the morning. There are difficulties in using brooms on pavements crowded with people, many of whom may be in an inebriated, or perhaps a semi-inebriated, state. At such times, the most that can realistically be expected is that litter is picked up, to maintain the levels of street litter within reasonable bounds. I hope that, from what I have said, I have convinced the Minister that the litter authority has an important role to play as one of the responsible authorities. 
 We have considered other provisions that cover the chief officer of police and the fire authority. It is clear that cleansing contractors have to deal with large quantities of waste deposited on our streets during the hours of darkness. The operations required to clean London streets at the end of an evening entail sweeping, flushing and pressure-washing, which cannot be carried out when the streets remain busy with people. It would not be reasonable to expect Westminster council or any other authority to complete cleansing arrangements of that nature without a window of opportunity—a few hours—between the end of the night's entertainment and the beginning of the next working day. 
 That is part of the reason why we want the principal litter authority to become a responsible authority for the purposes of the clause. Obviously, it is authorised to do its day-to-day work, but it should be regarded as an interested and responsible party for the purposes of the planning application. It is sometimes argued—by a number of applicants in the city of Westminster, at least—at licensing hearings that the state of west end streets has less to do with the activities of licensed premises than with the efficiency of the city council's cleansing operation. However, it is clear from what I have said, and anyone who visits those streets in the early hours of the day will confirm, that the city council does a terrific job, albeit by passing on that 
 authority on a day-to-day basis to contractors under the usual legislation. 
 The street cleansing and waste collection service, rather than the city council itself, holds a charter mark. For that reason, it is all the more important that it is the principal litter authority, rather than the city council, that should be the responsible authority for the purposes of clause 14. The growth of the night-time economy has added a significant burden to the council's cleansing services over the past decade or so. The present construction of the contract in Westminster, which is replicated in various London boroughs, puts the bulk of the additional financial burden on the contractor. It is therefore in the contractor's interest to ensure that the state of the streets is satisfactory and that there is a sensible regime, given their real concerns and constraints during their day-to-day business. 
 I hope the Minister will give considerable thought to our amendment, because it reflects the fact that many of the duties are now contracted out. It is not enough simply to say that environmental health officers may object under the current terms to the pollution and harm done to children's health, and that they therefore have some locus standi under clause 14. It is not clear whether local authority street cleansing services would be able to make such strong representations. Representations could be made to the local authority, but surely such services should have the opportunity to object in their own right, so that the streets of our main cities can remain clean. 
 I consider that to be in the interests of residents, but also in the interests of any commercial quarter. Without a regime that allows for the proper cleansing of our streets in central London and if the state of those streets becomes increasingly bad, we shall soon find that much of the income from tourism, which goes into so many parts of our economy, will be diminished. If that happens, the hotel businesses, and much of the other business in the west end, would quickly think about moving away. 
 I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to ensuring that among the responsible authorities there could be a principal litter authority. I do not expect that that would be a grave concern, or that it would add more bureaucracy to the Bill, and I suspect that only in a relatively small number of cases would a litter authority want to have the locus standi. 
 The situation in the streets of central London may not be unique, but it is fairly unusual. We are now ensuring that there is compulsory competitive tendering and such facilities are contracted out, away from the local authorities' environmental health departments. Thus it makes sense that environmental health departments should be extended to become litter authorities. That would make sure that they had their say in protecting the general quality of life, and ensuring that commercial facilities were maintained.

Bob Blizzard: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. Is he aware that clause 117, or thereabouts, of the Local Government Bill, which is currently in the other place,
 will do what I suggest in my private Member's Bill? It will allow local authorities to keep the revenue from fixed penalty fines to use in the enforcement of the litter laws. If authorities concentrate on enforcement, the burden of clearing up litter that is currently placed on them might be lessened. The hon. Gentleman ought to take that into account when making his case.

Mark Field: I accept that, and I wish the hon. Gentleman all the best with his private Member's Bill. However, we are thinking about this Bill, and considering who should have some standing as the responsible authority. That is why I have put forward the case for ensuring that a principal litter authority should have some standing in relation to licensing applications.
 As I have already said, there must be a properly timed window of opportunity to ensure that the streets are cleaned. It is always amazing to see how quickly streets can be cleaned, considering how many people are around until the early hours of the morning. However, there should be some gap. With the London Underground, it is recognised that a certain number of hours should be set aside every day for maintenance. We may talk about the desirability of having 24-hour train services, at least for some of the week, but that is a debate for another time. It is recognised that some gap is required, and I worry that a regime with concentrated saturation 24-hour licensing would have no gap. It would be in the hands of the local litter authority to make representations about that. 
 The practical consequences are that unless the Bill is amended, we fear that the local street cleaning authorities will be unable to clean up to an acceptable standard before the beginning of the next working day. At the very least, street cleansing and flushing operations would have to take place later, to the great disturbance of local residents and significant numbers of ratepayers and businesses in the area. The measure may result in a general worsening of standards. I hope that the Minister will consider those comments, and that even if he cannot fully accept our amendment, he will suggest how we might improve matters.

Andrew Turner: I welcome you back to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Benton.
 I tabled two amendments, Nos. 182 and 183. The first requires that 
''the health authority responsible for ambulance services''
 be included as a responsible authority. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), I will illustrate the reasons for that by referring to my constituency. 
 As some hon. Members will have gathered, the Isle of Wight is detached from the mainland by a stretch of water.

Malcolm Moss: Separated is a better word.

Andrew Turner: I think that detached is a far better word.

Mark Field: Might I suggest that my hon. Friend is an appropriate Member of Parliament for his constituency?

Andrew Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that.
 If a major event such as a pop festival were to be organised in my constituency, or in some of the more distant parts of the constituencies of other Committee members, it would be essential for the safety of local people to know that adequate facilities were available for transferring cases to accident and emergency units or the appropriate hospitals. 
 We have a limited fixed number of ambulances on the island, because it is difficult for my health authority to obtain assistance from adjoining ambulance authorities. Indeed, there are none. When a major cardiac arrest happens, it is sometimes necessary to use a helicopter to transfer the patient to the mainland. If the population of the island doubles, as happened in the 1970s at the time of the pop festival, the limited number of ambulances available—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton: Order. The noise levels are too high.

Andrew Turner: Forgive me, Mr. Benton, if I encouraged that by introducing an air of levity. The matter that we are discussing is tremendously serious, as I am sure the Minister recognises. If the population of an area doubles, it is at least likely that the number of ambulances needed in that area will increase. In the case of a detached constituency such as mine, or a distant part of the mainland, it is difficult to bring those ambulances in on demand—arrangements have to be made in advance. I contend that the health authority responsible for the ambulance service should be included as a consultee.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but does he not accept that it would be the responsibility of the applicant for a licence to demonstrate that he or she had taken adequate steps to protect public safety? The Glastonbury festival organiser always has to ensure that the health authority has adequate controls. If one were to hold a pop festival on the Isle of Wight, the licensing authority would make a judgment as to whether there had been proper consultation and provision to satisfy concerns about public safety. Does that not answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman is—rightly—asking under his amendment?

Andrew Turner: I am not sure. I remain to be convinced by the Minister. I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I think Portland is the relevant example in this case.

Jim Knight: That is also an island, but is attached by a causeway.

Andrew Turner: I appreciate that.
 We should examine whether it is necessary for the ambulance authority to be a ''responsible authority'' that is entitled to be consulted, or whether to leave it to the promoter of the entertainment to put that forward. We could then rely on the licensing authority to check that sufficient arrangements for public safety have been made. Of course, not all aspects of public safety are within the control of the promoter. If someone has a heart attack for a reason not associated with the entertainment, that would not necessarily be within the control of the promoter.

Jim Knight: I have no wish to extend the
 argument—we have important matters to discuss, and we all agree that we need to move as quickly as possible. However, there have been deaths at the Glastonbury festival. A large city is temporarily created during that event. It is the responsibility of the promoter to ensure that adequate measures are taken to guard against such deaths and to make sure that proper provision is made for transporting people to Frenchay hospital and the other key acute hospitals in the area. The Bill offers the solution that the hon. Gentleman is rightly looking for.

Andrew Turner: I am pleased to hear that. If the Minister can confirm that, I may ask leave to withdraw the amendment in due course.

Kim Howells: I can confirm that.

Andrew Turner: That deals with amendment No. 182.
 Amendment No. 183 is slightly more interesting. The involvement of sea-going vessels has not been widely considered, either in the Bill or in the White Paper. I am interested in subsection (4)(g)(i), which mentions ''a navigation authority''. Does that authority include a harbour authority? There are four harbour authorities that affect my constituency—Southampton, Cowes, Yarmouth and the Queen's harbour master. The latter voluntarily accepts requirements made of other authorities by legislation, but in fact its primary responsibility is for the security of the Queen's port of Portsmouth. 
 My amendment considers problems arising on or off a sea-going vessel. According to Lord Justice Clarke's report on the Marchioness disaster, 
''An additional power would provide for a police officer . . . to be able to order any boat . . . on grounds of disorder . . . and public safety to return to its home berth and the disembarkation of all passengers.''
 I wonder whether a police officer has responsibility outside his police area, and I would be interested to know when a police officer's responsibility relates to the high seas. A vessel might clearly be navigating within a police authority's area. For example, if a vessel were navigated from Portsmouth to Gosport, nobody would question whether the chief constable of Hampshire had responsibility in that area. If a vessel were navigated from Portsmouth to the Isle of Wight, the chief constable might have authority within that area. But what if the vessel were navigated from Ryde to Bognor Regis? One end of the journey is in one police authority, one end is in another, and part of it may be outwith both police authorities. 
 I propose that we make that the responsibility of the authority that is responsible for safety and rescue at sea and give it the status of a responsible authority within the meaning of the Bill. Safety issues remain primarily the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In effect, it is the Health and Safety Executive of the sea. It is responsible for enforcing legislation on the safety of ships, including hovercraft, their crew and work equipment supplied by ships, and the safety of passengers on board. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency should be included 
 in the Bill and defined in more general terms by the inclusion of amendment No. 183.

Kim Howells: First, I congratulate Westminster council on winning the award. It is an important one and the matter is something about which I feel strongly. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will be interested to know that litter is a problem that does not only affect inner cities. It affects everywhere. I went out on my pushbike on Saturday, and even up in the mountains in a very remote part of my constituency there was litter along both sides of the road for the whole length of my ride. The filthy individuals who throw stuff out of their cars as they pass ought to think more often about their actions.
 The Government cannot accept amendment No. 122. The Bill cannot deal with the behaviour of customers after they have left the vicinity of the premises. It would be neither practical nor reasonable to expect it to do so. Under the Bill, licensing objectives must be capable of translation into conditions that can reasonably be imposed on any premises licence holder. Those must be within his or her control, so that failure to comply can properly result in prosecution. It must be clear to the licence holder and to enforcement officers when the holder has transgressed the law. 
 It is easy to see how a licensee might encourage responsible behaviour as individuals are leaving premises, even when they are getting into their nearby cars and driving away. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave us examples of neighbourhoods that suffer a good deal of noise pollution, especially in the early hours of the morning. 
 A condition attached to the licence could reasonably require the licensee to do that, by placing litter bins and signs at exits, for example. However, that influence quickly becomes attenuated. Once customers are beyond the licence holder's control, the onus for good conduct should fall squarely on the individual, and it is on the individual that enforcement efforts should be focused.

Mark Field: I fully appreciate the worries that licensees will have. They will say that they cannot and should not be made responsible for individuals who have left their premises. In the case of narrow streets that cannot otherwise be cleaned, there should be a principal litter authority that can argue for a curfew time, even if only for two or three hours during the night. It would have the standing to argue a forceful case—at least, its side of the case—that a 24-hour licence should not be granted because it would otherwise be impossible properly to cleanse the streets. We are not talking about placing any further burdens on the licensee.

Kim Howells: I can imagine a situation in which a licensing authority would see it fit and proper to discuss matters with whichever department arranges and controls street cleaning. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of trying to clean using brooms when streets are crowded. I am sure that he will recall that one of the things that the Government are aiming for in the Bill is to prevent those spikes
 when people are thrown out of pubs at a certain time. If that is successful, there should be more space on the pavements.
 To add the principal litter authority for the area to the list of responsible authorities and to make it a body that must be consulted on every application will add to the bureaucracy. Litter is generated by thoughtless and inconsiderate individuals; not by licensed premises per se. It seems rather unfair to single out licensed premises, as the amendment does. Litter may derive from a variety of sources, such as fast food outlets, schools—all sorts of places. Where education and persuasion are insufficient to tackle the problem, statutory powers are available to local authorities. Section 93 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that councils may issue to the occupiers of certain types of commercial or retail premises a street litter control notice, with a view to preventing the accumulation of litter or refuse around streets or open land adjacent to any street in the vicinity of those premises. 
 The types of premises that are specified in the Street Litter Control Notices Order 1991, as amended, include those used for the sale of food, drink and lottery tickets, petrol stations, betting shops, places of entertainment and premises with automatic telling machine—ATMs—on outside walls. For example, an authority can specify reasonable requirements in relation to a maximum length of 100 m along a street in either direction—I understand that it is 10 m for ATMs. Furthermore, local authorities may issue persons with fixed penalty notices for leaving litter in breach of the 1990 Act. 
 A few months ago, Cardiff city council—it is nice to be able to mention a council other than Westminster during the debate—issued fixed penalty notices for those breaking environmental laws under the council's tough policy on litter. Here is what Westminster Conservatives had to say on their website on the subject of litter: ''Adequate enforcement''—they may not have said it in this accent— 
''is another aspect of clean streets. Last year, Westminster issued over 7,300 litter fines—more than every other council in the country combined.''
 I am not sure whether that is good or bad. I suspect that it is good, and it is a remarkable fact. That council has gone a long way in trying to tackle the problem of litter. 
 Powers clearly exist and they are being used. The 1990 Act includes the general offence of leaving litter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made clear, many such issues are being dealt with in the Local Government Bill. His own Bill—I had the pleasure of listening to him introducing it in the House last Friday—paid specific attention to these issues. That was a good initiative. 
 It is unfair to single out licensed premises as the main culprits. Local authorities have wide powers to take action where it is merited and where voluntary engagement by individual businesses does not achieve results. Amendment No. 122 adds nothing to the Bill and I hope that it will not be pressed.

Mark Field: Can the Minister confirm whether under the Bill the environmental enforcement notices to which he refers, which already provide powers for local authorities such as Westminster, will ensure that authority is given to local licensing authorities to utilise orders that go back over a decade? I hope that the Minister understands that there is no question of trying to single out licensed premises, and he is right to point out the concerns about fast food outlets that are open 24 hours a day. Can he confirm that the orders to which he referred will be able to cover the concerns that I have articulated?

Kim Howells: I cannot speak for any other Government Department or Minister but I would have thought that, given the length of time that this legislation has been in place and the example set by authorities such as the city of Westminster, local authorities would know that they have the right to do these things. Whether they have the political will to do them is another matter.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the new local government legislation local authorities will be able to keep the fines rather than return them to the Exchequer, which was the case under the previous Conservative Government, which introduced legislation?

Kim Howells: That is true.
 Amendment No. 182 would add 
''the health authority responsible for ambulance services for the area''.
 I am unsure whether the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) moved that amendment, or if he wants me to say something about it. 
Mr. Turner indicated assent.

Kim Howells: Although I should check with my Whip about what I should do in these circumstances, I will keep going.
 I do not accept that this amendment would achieve anything except an increase in bureaucracy and red tape. Ambulance call-outs to licensed premises arise almost exclusively from incidents of disorder. As a result of our antiquated system of permitted hours, thousands of people are turfed out on to the streets at the same time, having left licensed premises and frequently having consumed large quantities of alcohol in a very short period. Some of them—mostly young men—enter into a debate that is considerably less gentlemanly than the way in which you, Mr. Benton, allow us to debate matters in this Committee, sometimes with disastrous results. 
 We are tackling that problem at source. The Bill gives the police considerable powers to control disorder, which supplement their existing powers: they will be notified of all licensing applications; they will be able to make representations; they will be able to call for a review of existing premises licences on the grounds of crime and disorder; they will have powers to close any licensed premises on the spot for 24 hours where they are giving rise to issues of disorder; and, of course, the abolition of fixed and artificially early closing times will reduce the lager guzzling that so often leads to violence on the streets at closing time. 
 Adding the ambulance service to the list of responsible authorities does nothing to deal with disorder and everything to increase bureaucracy. I hope that the amendment will not be agreed. 
 Amendment No. 183 adds 
''the authorities responsible for safety and rescue at sea (where the premises are a sea-going vessel)''
 to the list of responsible authorities, which is also unnecessary. First, the Bill exempts all vessels engaged on an international journey—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight told us that—which immediately places the vast majority of sea-going vessels outside the licensing regime altogether. Secondly, those sea-going vessels engaged in journeys in coastal waters will come under the jurisdiction of the relevant navigation authority, which is already specified in the Bill. I hope that that amendment will also be withdrawn. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked about hovercraft. We have Sir Christopher Cockerell to thank for their ingenious propulsion method.

Andrew Turner: Off Cowes.

Kim Howells: I do not think that cows have much to do with this, but they have given us a lot of milk.
 Hovercraft occupy their own particular position in legislation because of that ingenious method: they are neither boats nor aircraft, but something in between. Regulations regarding the operation of hovercraft are made through Orders in Council. They are detailed and include strict safety requirements and responsibilities on owners and captains. That is why the Bill's provisions do not apply to such craft. Other legislation may be applied to hovercraft through Orders in Council, but for the purposes of the Bill it is considered to be correct to treat hovercraft in the same way as we deal with other aircraft that are covered by the relevant requirements. If the hon. Gentleman needs further information, I would be happy to write to him. 
Mr. Turner rose—

Kim Howells: I will not give way for a moment, because the hon. Gentleman asked many questions and I will try to answer them.
 Under clause 172, a vessel that is engaged on an international journey is exempt from the provisions of the Bill—such a journey is defined in 172(6)—and vessels that are not engaged in an international journey are covered by the Bill. That meets the undertaking that the Government gave to Lord Justice Clark after the Thames safety inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. Pleasure trips and so forth on inshore coastal waters would be in the UK, so they are in the scope of the Bill. Certain merchant supply legislation or local authority byelaws would apply, depending on the kind of vessel. However, Lord Clark was led to make his recommendation because vessels to which the Bill shall apply were not regulated in relation to the sale of alcohol. 
 The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is given the status of an authorised person in clause 14(2)(e). However, with regard to the ability to make 
 representations, although not inspections relevant to the enforcement role, the Secretary of State is included as the appropriate authority for MCA officers. The hon. Gentleman also asked about harbour masters. The reference in 14(4)(g)(i) on navigation authorities includes harbour authorities.

Mark Field: I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister has said, but that does not mean that I am not convincible. I hope that serious consideration will be given on Report to whether the list of responsible authorities under clause 14(4) is broad enough and whether it would be prudent to increase that to include litter and ambulance authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight suggested. However, on the basis of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 121, in 
clause 14, page 9, line 15, leave out 
 ', including the relevant licensing authority,' 
 and insert 
 '(other than the relevant licensing authority)'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Meaning of ''designated premises supervisor''

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
clause 16, page 9, line 36, leave out from 'being' to end of line 37 and insert 
 'registered with the relevant licensing authority in that capacity.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 143, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 39, leave out 'in the licence'.
 Amendment No. 144, in 
clause 18, page 11, line 10, leave out from 'form' to end of line 15.
 Amendment No. 145, in 
clause 18, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (e).
 Amendment No. 146, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).
 Amendment No. 147, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).
 Amendment No. 148, in 
clause 19, page 13, line 8, leave out subsection (9).
 Amendment No. 189, in 
clause 19, page 13, line 10, leave out from 'situated' to end of line 14.
 Amendment No. 149, in 
clause 24, page 15, line 3, leave out paragraph (e).
 Amendment No. 199, in 
clause 33, page 19, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
 Amendment No. 200, in 
clause 33, page 19, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
 Amendment No. 201, in 
clause 33, page 19, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
 Amendment No. 150, in 
clause 34, page 20, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
 Clauses 37 to 40 stand part. 
 Amendment No. 202, in 
clause 41, page 23, line 31, leave out 
 'may give the relevant licensing authority' 
 and insert 
 'must give the relevant licensing authority, the chief officer of police for the said area and the owner of the premises licence (if that is a different person)'.
 Amendment No. 155, in 
clause 41, page 23, line 33, leave out subsections (2) to (6).
 Amendment No. 156, in 
clause 41, page 24, line 9, leave out from 'section' to end of line 10.
 Amendment No. 157, in 
schedule 5, page 119, line 35, leave out subparagraph (c).
 Amendment No. 158, in 
schedule 5, page 121, line 1, leave out paragraph 5 and insert— 
 'Revocation of registration of designated premises supervisor 
 5 (1) This paragraph applies where an application to revoke registration of a designated premises supervisor in respect of a premises is refused under section (Registration of designated premises supervisor) in a case where a chief officer of police gave a notice of objection under subsection (1) of that section (which was not withdrawn). 
 (2) The chief officer of police may appeal against the decision not to revoke the registration. 
 (3) Where registration of a designated premises supervisor is revoked, the applicant may appeal against that decision.'.
 Amendment No. 159, in 
schedule 8, page 157, line 20, leave out subsubparagraph (b).
 Amendment No. 160, in 
schedule 8, page 157, line 36, leave out subsubparagraph (d).
 Amendment No. 161, in 
schedule 8, page 160, line 26, leave out subparagraph (7).
 Amendment No. 162, in 
schedule 8, page 161, line 1, leave out subsection (a).
 Amendment No. 163, in 
schedule 8, page 161, line 4, leave out 'other'.
 Amendment No. 164, in 
schedule 8, page 161, line 5, leave out 
 'an application within paragraph (a) or (b)' 
 and insert 'such an application'.
 Amendment No. 165, in 
schedule 8, page 161, line 7, leave out '(a) or (b)'. 
Amendment No. 166, in 
schedule 8, page 161, line 10, leave out '(a) or (b)'. New clause 2 Registration of designated premises supervisor

New clause 2 - Registration of designated premises supervisor

'(1) A holder of a personal licence seeking to become the designated premises supervisor for premises shall serve a notice in the prescribed form, together with the signed consent of the holder of the premises licence, upon— 
 (a) the relevant licensing authority, 
 (b) the chief officer of police, and 
 (c) the person previously designated as premises supervisor, at his last known address, 
 and provided such notice is given registration shall be deemed to come into effect (and the registration of the person previously holding the position of designated premises supervisor cease) upon the receipt by the relevant licensing authority of the said notice. 
 (2) A person who has so registered shall forthwith ensure that a notice in the prescribed form identifying that person as the designated premises supervisor is prominently displayed on the premises. 
 (3) Failure to display such a notice in accordance with subsection (1) shall be an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding Level 1 on the standard scale.'.

New clause 3 - Revocation of registration of designated premises supervisor

'(1) Where a chief officer of police is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case are such that permitting the person so identified in a notice given under subsection (2) of section (Registration of designated premises supervisor) would undermine the crime prevention objective, he may within 14 days of receiving such notice apply to the relevant licensing authority for the revocation of the registration of that person as the designated premises supervisor. 
 (2) Where a notice is given under the previous subsection (and not withdrawn), the authority must— 
 (a) hold a hearing to consider it, unless the authority, the applicant and the chief officer of police who gave the notice agree that a hearing is unnecessary, and 
 (b) having regard to the notice, grant the application for revocation if it considers it necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to do so. 
 (3) Where registration under section (Registration of designated premises supervisor) is revoked, the relevant licensing authority must give a notice to that effect to— 
 (a) the person who was so registered, 
 (b) the holder of the premises licence, and 
 (c) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated. 
 (4) Where a chief officer of police gave notice under subsection (1) (and it was not withdrawn), the notice under the preceding subsection must state the authority's reasons for granting or rejecting the application for revocation of the registration.'.

Malcolm Moss: I did not think that you were going to come to an end as you read out those amendments, Mr. Benton. That is a testament to the importance and significance of the clause—it is also contentious. At the start of our proceedings I said that we wanted to help the Minister to formulate pragmatic, practical and workable legislation, and this is his one big opportunity to do just that. We know that the Minister's fame—perhaps even his notoriety—has gone far and wide because of his criticism of modern English art, but he has other talents, too. I hope that he is listening carefully to the powerful arguments from all the parts of the industry that will be involved in this area.
 Clause 16 begins by defining the ''designated premises supervisor'', and it is followed by a host of other clauses, some of which we will debate in their own right, and others under schedule 8. It is a wide-ranging clause, as once the role of the supervisor has been defined, we can move on to all sorts of other areas. 
 The way in which the Government have drafted the clause is incredibly bureaucratic and over-regulated. We know how the clause began. Presumably the police, having considered the White Paper in negotiations with Government, said, ''If there's a problem on some premises and we send the boys along, they need to be able to ascertain quickly and without too much fuss and bother who's in charge.'' No one would disagree with that. However, then the civil servants got a hold of the idea, and the draftsman got hold of what the civil servants had done. We have ended up with about 10 clauses, two schedules and all the rest of it, just to tie in the simple concept of having a designated premises supervisor. 
 Let us begin with where the industry stands on the clause. The British Beer and Pub Association, the British Hospitality Association, the Restaurant Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, Business in Sport and Leisure and the British Retail Consortium, as well as the various licensed victuallers associations throughout the country, support our amendments to the procedures and obligations surrounding the designated premises supervisor. 
 Members of the Committee will, I am sure, be aware that the list I read out represents a large and diverse part of the leisure and hospitality market. Those organisations have discussed the issues involved with the Local Government Association—we had a spat in Committee the other day about exactly what the LGA had said, to whom and when. The LGA is saying, however, that it too believes that the procedures outlined in clause 16 and beyond are unnecessary. 
 As I said, the police have expressed their concern that the personal licence holder should be known to the premises licence holder. That is not a problem, because we believe that we have covered that requirement in new clause 2, which requires the consent of the premises licence holder to be obtained before a notice is served. 
 We are told that the industry has discussed the salient issues at length with the Government. However, it is disappointed that its arguments have not yet received a sympathetic response from the Government. Letters have been written, and some responses are still outstanding. Only the other day a letter from the Licensed Victuallers Association was suddenly produced out of a hat to the Minister's left, and he did not know anything about it. There may well be other letters that he has not seen. I suggest that he insists on seeing every letter that has been written on the subject to date.

Kim Howells: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I never see another letter on this issue, I shall be more than glad.

Malcolm Moss: I do not consider that to be a very sympathetic response.
 The industry has long agreed to the split in licensing; if we go back far enough, we shall find that it probably suggested the concept in the first place. It also recognises that the personal licence holder would need to be known to the authorities, and 
 that the information needs to be registered somewhere. It therefore has no quarrel—nor do we—with the need to identify and register the premises supervisor. 
 We disagree with the Minister about the support of the linkage to the premises licence through the requirement to regard the change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence, and, following on from that, the requirement to write the name of the designated premises supervisor into that premises licence. That is incredibly bureaucratic. Has the hon. Gentleman had any communication with the Better Regulation Task Force? Has he written to that organisation? Did he ask its views? If it has responded, perhaps he will share its views with the Committee—or if it has used its own initiative and made its views known, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what they are? 
 What are the views of the Small Business Service, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry, about the regulations that are required? The premises licence should be a stand-alone licence. It is concerned primarily with the suitability of particular premises to provide alcohol and/or public entertainment at the times and under the conditions granted to it. That must stand irrespective of the personal licensee, who we accept has the duty and responsibility to uphold the terms of the licence and the law. 
 The consequences of the linkages that the Government have set out in the Bill can be seen as a series of obligations. The name of the designated premises supervisor must be given at the time of the application for a new licence. That person will not always be identified at the time of the application. For example, a supermarket chain that wants to obtain a licence may not even appoint the relevant manager until near the opening day. The identity of the person who will be responsible for the licence should make no difference to the application for a premises licence, so long as he or she is qualified professionally under the Bill to undertake such duties. When the new licensee is ready to commence business, it would be a simple matter to notify the police and the licensing authority of the identity of the personal licence holder, who is designated as the premises supervisor. Such matters are set out in new clause 2. 
 The second problem is that under the Bill, the premises licence must be altered each time there is a change of manager. That can happen frequently in larger businesses where managers move around constantly for career development and other reasons. Currently, about 155,000 premises hold an alcohol licence. In many of those businesses the turnover of staff is high—much higher than in many other businesses. Even if we pluck out of the air a 10 per cent. turnover figure, it means that in 15,500 cases a variation in the premises licence will be triggered by a movement of personnel, which means a rigmarole of applications to the local licensing authority, and the associated costs. 
 The industry, and most other people, were happy with the White Paper when it was drafted. For the purpose of my argument, I shall read out the relevant 
 paragraph to the Committee. Paragraph 43, on page 23, states: 
''On arrival in a new licensing area a personal licence holder intending to work in new premises would be required to notify the police and the licensing authority of his or her arrival. This would enable the police to check details against the central database''—
 as we mentioned in a previous debate, that was dealt with in the same chapter of the White Paper— 
''and maintain a closer eye on certain licence holders whose history might demand it. We have considered whether the police or the licensing authority should have a right at this stage to refuse to permit a licence holder from elsewhere to become responsible for premises in their area. On one hand, there is a danger that this could undermine the basic principle of allowing a fully transferable licence and encourage the application of different standards in differed parts of the country. The normal presumption must therefore be''—
 this is critical— 
''that any personal licence holder will be acceptable.''
 A little later, paragraph 44 says: 
''In these exceptional cases, problems could sensibly be avoided by personal holders giving the police advance warning of their impending arrival, thereby allowing issues to be resolved prior to the transfer and avoiding the need for premises to be closed for a temporary period.''
 Whoever wrote that was offering a practical and sensible way forward. The industry accepts that advice, as do we, so why on earth, in the gestation period between the publishing of the White Paper and the coming to fruition of the Bill, has there been such a huge increase in bureaucracy? [Interruption.] The Minister scoffs, or perhaps laughs—I am not sure which. We are talking about deregulating, yet here is what we will be doing under parts of the Bill—I am sorry, the markings on my Bill look like a St. Andrew's cross; I did not mean any offence to any Scots here. 
 New clause 2 would take away whole clauses on this subject, to replace them with a couple of subsections that simply say what was intended in the White Paper: that when a change occurs, the new personal licence holder will notify the various authorities. We have set that out in new clause 2, and for the Committee's delectation, I shall read it out: 
''A holder of a personal licence seeking to become the designated premises supervisor for premises shall serve a notice in the prescribed form, together with the signed consent of the holder or the premises licence''.
 That leaps over the police's objection that they need to know that the premises licence holder knows who the designated premises supervisor is. Such a licence should be served 
''upon—
(a) the relevant licensing authority,
(b) the chief officer of police, and
(c) the person previously designated as premises supervisor, at his last known address''.
 The new clause then goes on to cover other aspects. 
 We believe that the requirement to serve notice achieves all the Government's aims in bringing forward the concept of a designated premises supervisor. We accept that that concept was not in the White Paper, and that the police want a named person—but new clause 2 gets round that difficulty. We also suggest in the new clause that the name of the 
 supervisor should be displayed prominently on the premises, so that if the police turn up they know exactly who that person is, and can take action pretty well immediately. 
 It is time that the Government took notice of the arguments on the subject. I hope that the Minister will make at least some movement towards our position—although the fact that he would lose some six clauses and two schedules might make him think that doing so would not look too good on his record.

Kim Howells: That is nothing.

Malcolm Moss: I am delighted to hear it.
 I am aware that Labour members of the Committee, too, particularly the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), are interested in the clause. Perhaps he has had a session of ringing round this lunchtime, as he did earlier in the week, or perhaps he has had lunch and moved up a rung on the ladder this time? Undoubtedly he will speak on those matters himself. 
 We understand that representatives of the police, who are in regular contact with the Minister and his team about these matters, are also happy with the proposals. Therefore, all this extra legislation and bureaucracy is unnecessary. The police are now satisfied that a way forward can be found that is sensible, practical and does away with all this bureaucracy, and cost, because it is costly to business and the licensing authorities to have 15,000 or 20,000 variations to deal with in any given year. 
 We are interested to hear what the Minister has to say and we reserve our right to press this amendment to a Division if that is necessary.

Nick Harvey: I endorse the case that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made. He did so in sensible terms. He is right that the formula in the Bill is unnecessarily bureaucratic, that it cannot serve the interests of deregulation or better regulation, and that the original intention as laid out in the White Paper was a better way of handling these issues. There is no point in elaborately rehearsing that case because the hon. Gentleman has done so more than adequately. He is right and I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks.

John Grogan: I wish to make a brief, helpful, post-lunch contribution to the cause of Her Majesty's Government. The case has been put well, but I have a couple of points.
 Why does it matter that we get this relatively technical point right and the matters arising from the previous debate on registering interests, by spending time on trying to achieve consensus? It matters because this will be a massive change in our licensing system and if we can get consensus it is worth going that extra mile to do so. Achieving a system where the police, local government, tenants and the industry all agree is a prize worth aiming for. That is why I put some effort into doing that. 
 We are tantalisingly close to achieving that. There are two main objections to the Opposition's new 
 clauses. One of them is the attitude of the police. They have now made it clear that they have no objection in principle to a notification or registration system rather than one that requires changing the premises licence or a schedule to that licence every time the designated premises supervisor changes.

Malcolm Moss: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is closer to these matters than we are because of his position on the all-party beer group, and perhaps he would share with us the names of the ''police'' to whom he is talking. Are they terribly important and ought we to know about them?

John Grogan: Next Wednesday, the deputy chief constable of the Greater Manchester police, which takes the lead on such licensing matters for the whole country, has agreed to host a meeting at that force's headquarters. It will be attended by senior representatives of the Local Government Association, the police, the industry—not only big business, because the tenants are keen to attend, too—and the all-party beer group. They will discuss this matter and that of the register of interests.
 The Minister is not keen to get any more letters on this subject, so I will call what we are hoping will arise from that meeting, if we manage to reach a consensus, a memo. That will be dispatched to the Minister and other Committee members to clarify the attitude of all of those organisations on this matter. The police would like to know as soon as possible of any changes in designated premises supervisors, but the industry is keen to provide that information so it appears that we are close to achieving consensus. 
 Another issue raised is the difference in attitude between big business and tenants. There is some suggestion that if we went the way of a registration or notification system, as the Opposition suggest, that would take responsibility away from big business and put it on to individual licensees and so forth. We are talking not only about pubs, but about all licences. As for pubs, it is worth considering the position of tenants. They are proud people. They would want to hold premises licences and be responsible for notifying their situation to the relevant authorities. 
 I stress that our debates in Committee matter. Our debate on Tuesday covered some similar issues and concluded that we would not have a register of interests. As a result, one prominent brewery, Hardy and Hansons, which makes Kimberley ales in Nottingham, has decided that it will have premises licences for all its pubs. The tenants are already up in arms because they want the premises licences to be in their names. Thus, what we do has consequences and I hope that the discussions on those two important matters that will be held just prior to Easter next Wednesday will reach a consensus. There can be no doubt in any part of the House about the attitude of the police, the Local Government Association, tenants and the industry.

Malcolm Moss: Have representatives of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport been invited to the meeting? If not, what is the point of it?

John Grogan: People from the DCMS can join us in Manchester, should they so wish. I did not think that it was my place to invite them.

Malcolm Moss: They have not said that.

John Grogan: I have not invited them, to be fair. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I am busy at lunchtimes and I organised the meeting at lunchtime.

Joe Benton: Order. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the dates and times of meetings are not relevant. Will he return to the amendment, please?

John Grogan: Obviously, I take your guidance, Mr. Benton. However, whatever the date and time of the meeting, I hope that the Government will listen to any conclusions that result that from it.

Kim Howells: I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that I always listen to what he says and I always listen to what the all-party beer group says.
 The purpose of the amendment is clear. It is to replace the arrangements for the specification of the designated premises supervisor in the premises licence where alcohol is to be supplied with arrangements that involve a system of registering supervisors. The issues surrounding the designated premises supervisor were debated many times at great length in Committee and on Report in another place. The Government's position was supported in another place and, although the matter was pressed to a Division, all attempts to amend the arrangements were defeated. 
 Interestingly, Conservative Members said on Second Reading and in Committee that we should be slow to overturn views expressed in another place. Yet now they seem ready, when it suits them, to pursue changes that the other place rejected. They really need to make up their minds. They are inconsistent and they look to me like slaves to unnamed, outside lobbyists. It is probably to do with some big business, but I will not go into that. 
 On a number of occasions on Second Reading, some hon. Members said that the arrangements for the designated premises supervisor virtually involved a new licence application. That is completely untrue. I must conclude that they have been misled by some over-enthusiastic lobbying, no doubt by the same companies. The current system—not the new one—involves the full transfer of justices licences when a new manager is to be put in place. There is a full hearing at which the police are required to express views. The justices question the manager to decide whether he is a fit and proper person to hold the licence. The system is bureaucratic and costly, not only in fees and expenses, but management time. That, I stress, is the old system.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend also agree that much of the transfer will be carried out under office delegation and not involve members of the licensing authority at all?

Kim Howells: Absolutely. I should have thought that we had debated those issues long enough for Conservative Members to realise that.
 The new arrangements under the Bill provide that the new supervisor with his personal licence—we fully 
 expect him to be in managing control of the premises so I shall call him the manager—can, if needed, take up his post immediately. I repeat, the manager can take up his post immediately. That was a concession that we made to the pub industry before the Bill was published. On taking up his post, the manager's details must be sent with a copy of the schedule to the premises licence—just a page from it—to the licensing authority for amendment. A copy of the details will also go to the police. The police can intervene on crime prevention grounds, but only in exceptional circumstances and only in those rare cases will a hearing be needed. 
 Those changes represent a huge reduction in the existing bureaucracy as anyone who understands the new and old systems realises. The problem is that I am not sure that people do understand the differences. Despite that, there have been many challenges to the concept of a designated premises supervisor as it appears in the Bill. The different approaches have included the removal of the concept completely, the removal of the requirement to include, and therefore vary, details of the premises licence, or the reduction of police powers to intervene when a new premises supervisor arrives at the premises. Amendments Nos. 147 and 189 would deny the police the right to make representations about the designated premises supervisor, and even the industry no longer supports such a radical and unacceptable position. 
 The Government have made their position clear: all the approaches are a significant weakening of the Bill's provision to enhance the prevention of crime and disorder. The issue of the designated premises supervisor arises only in the context of the supply of alcohol. It is an important safeguard and will be vital to the police and other enforcement agencies. It is not burdensome for either an applicant, who will be the applicant for or holder of the premises licence, or the licensing authority. I am pleased to see the industry, in pressing for the scheme that most of the amendments tackle, has recognised the need for the police to have a right of intervention when a new designated premises supervisor arrives at a new premises. That is progress. 
 The industry has recognised that problems can arise upon the marriage of the two licences—personal and premises. It also recognises that the name of the individual must be displayed on the premises so that enforcement officers, or local residents who want to complain, know with whom they should be dealing. 
 The changes that the Opposition amendments would make generate a scheme that is so like the one in the Bill that the only differences are the terms used and who makes the application. Opposition Members believe that they are moving amendments that will reduce bureaucracy. I am happy to challenge them to demonstrate exactly where bureaucracy will be saved. Under the scheme that they propose, two pieces of paper—a notice and a form of consent—will be sent to the licensing authority, with copies being sent to the police and the person previously designated as premises supervisor, if there was one. The licensing authority then amends the details in the register, and the person may take up his post as soon as the notice 
 has been received. Unless the police choose to intervene, the person will display his name on the premises and begin supervising. 
 Let us compare that with our proposed arrangements. Under the Bill, on the arrival of the new manager, two pieces of paper—a page from the licence and a form of consent—will be sent to the licensing authority and copies will go to the police. The licensing authority will make the necessary amendments and the individual is allowed to take up his post immediately the application is received. Unless the police intervene, the individual will display on the premises the summary of the licence bearing his name and begin supervising. 
 I cannot for the life of me see the difference between those two arrangements in terms of bureaucracy or the numbers of pieces of paper involved. I cannot see anything in practice that is significantly different. The movers of the amendment call the arrangements registration, whereas I call it specification on the licence. Their scheme involves displaying two pieces of paper in the pub and the Government's involves displaying one, so we might be slightly ahead on the paper count. I would be disinclined to make changes that are purely cosmetic. If there are no real changes in practice or to the level of bureaucracy, what are the amendments pursuing? Are they a smokescreen for something else? Although the two rival schemes are remarkably similar, hon. Members may have missed some rather subtle differences that raise important matters for the Committee's consideration. 
 The first and perhaps most important issue is that of the person on whom the burden of complying with the duties described in the amendments falls. Under the Bill, it is the duty of the premises licence holder to specify a personal licence holder as the designated premises supervisor. Under the registration scheme proposed, it is the duty of the personal licence holder to register with the licensing authority and the premises licence holder has no role. So, we come to the heart of what all the hot air is about.

Malcolm Moss: I do not think that that matters because the personal licence holder has to have a consent form from the premises licence holder before notification is given.

Kim Howells: No, we are talking about who has the duty to send off the form, and under our scheme the duty lies with the premises licence holder. That is the difference. Under the registration scheme, the burden of carrying out the necessary but bureaucratic tasks that we have discussed falls on the personal licence holder, who will often be an employee or a manager working for the business that operates the pub. Under the Bill, the duty to specify the designated premises supervisor falls on the business itself—the premises licence holder.
 The amendments do nothing to reduce bureaucracy; that is nonsense. They shift the burden of compliance from business—sometimes very big business—on to employees. They seem to say that it is okay for workers to take on these burdens but not for 
 head office. Do Committee members really think that that can be right? The premises licence holder is ultimately responsible for what happens on the premises, and for whom within the company should be appointed, on its behalf, to ensure day-to-day compliance with the premises licence. 
 Let us be clear: under the Bill, the holder of the premises licence is responsible for ensuring compliance with the licence granted to the premises. It is the premises licence holder who decides who will work on the premises and who ensures for the holder that the licensing laws are observed. So why should the burden of being registered as a designated premises supervisor fall on an employee who does not hold the premises licence? As we heard when we debated registered interests, the bigger businesses want to maintain all the control behind the scenes, but avoid taking responsibility under the law. They cannot accept the benefits of the split licensing regime and then abdicate responsibility when it does not suit them. 
 We can now understand why trade associations that represent such businesses resent the idea so strongly, but I doubt very much that the National Association of Licensed House Managers and other trade unions would see the matter in quite the same way. Although we can understand why the trade associations want the change, let us not pretend that the proposals have anything to do with reduced bureaucracy—they do not. 
 There is one other subtle difference between the registration scheme and the scheme in the Bill. The latter is enforceable by law and the registration scheme appears to be unenforceable. Under the Bill, both the premises licence holder and the personal licence holder commit offences if they fail to send timely notices to one person or another in connection with their duties in respect of designated premises supervisors. That reflects the importance of the designated premises supervisor in the prevention of crime and disorder. 
 The deletion of clause 40 and the truncation of clause 41 would remove those key offence provisions and they are not replaced in the new clauses setting out the registration scheme. The only offence that seems to exist in that scheme is the failure to display the person's name at the pub or supermarket, so if one designated premises supervisor leaves and another takes up the post, what happens if they simply do not bother to amend the register or notify the police? So far as I can see, under the proposals, nothing happens. 
 I will summarise why I shall resist the amendments, just as they were resisted in another place. They do not represent any gains in reduced red tape and bureaucracy; that argument is a smokescreen. They shift the burden of compliance from the business holding the premises licence to employees in a wholly inappropriate way. They do that solely to serve a vested interest, and I must take a more balanced view than that. The registration scheme as drafted is wholly unenforceable. 
 My honourable Friend the Member for Selby attempted to broker an agreement between the British Beer and Pub Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government 
 Association to produce a registration scheme acceptable to all. The police are not on board yet, as they are looking for other changes before agreeing to the ones that those changes represent. 
 I will repeat what I said earlier. I am not inclined to look favourably on proposals that promote purely cosmetic change and do not really reduce bureaucracy. I cannot agree to a scheme that puts the responsibility on employees in a wholly inappropriate way. Decisions on such matters, and the responsibility for them, are for the premises licence holder. The police have said that they too find it wholly unacceptable that the designated premises supervisor, not the premises licence holder, should be responsible for notification. 
 Amendments Nos. 199 to 201 would remove from the Bill any requirement to notify the licensing authority of a change in the name or address of the designated premises supervisor. If the designated premises supervisor were a woman who married and changed her name and address, those details would not be notified to the licensing authority. The changes would therefore neither be specified on a schedule to the licence under our scheme, nor registered under the scheme that Opposition Members propose. That would mean that the name displayed at the pub in the summary of the licence could be entirely wrong. 
 How are local residents supposed to direct any complaint, if following her marriage, Mrs. Jones can deny that she is the person previously known as Miss Evans? How are the police and other enforcement bodies supposed to identify a person in those circumstances? A similar situation could arise if an individual changed his or her name by deed poll.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister is using an extreme example to support his argument. A person cannot be a designated premises supervisor unless he or she is a personal licence holder. Does he agree? Therefore, such people must be on a register somewhere.

Kim Howells: Of course, such people are on a register, but that is not an extreme example. People do get married—I know that fewer people do so now than did when I got married, but some do, and some of their names change. There could be many personal licence holders working on any premises, and the police and the local authority need to know with whom they should deal to sort out any problems. That means knowing their identities. We do not want everybody to be able to point the finger at everybody else and say, ''I'm not responsible.''
 I see no sense in the amendments, whichever scheme—registration or specification in the licence—was adopted.

Malcolm Moss: We saw the Minister at his robust best there, did we not?

Mark Hoban: Robust, anyway.

Malcolm Moss: Yes, perhaps we should add that qualification.
 I am still puzzled by the wording in the White Paper, which I presume was written by the Minister's Department—or perhaps it came from the Home Office. People may be more sensible there. The solution to the Minister's problem is probably to go 
 back to the Home Office. In the White Paper someone wrote: 
''On arrival in a new licensing area a personal licence holder intending to work in new premises would be required to notify the police''.
 In the White Paper, it is all right for personal licence holders to take responsibility, but apparently now that they are employees and members of trade unions, they should not do so. I cannot believe that I am hearing about such a socialist measure, along the lines of ''Shoot down big business and support the workers''. 
 Tenants of pubs will not be pleased to be known as ''employees''. They are not employees; they are self-employed people who run their own businesses. The Minister is nodding his head in approval. Why has there been this change? He seems to be saying that our scheme is based on two pieces of paper, and that his scheme is also based on two pieces of paper. If it is so easy, why do we need something like six clauses to organise it? I do not understand that, nor does the industry. In other words, it is an age-old problem. 
 Once the draftspeople get hold of something they go mad. They go to town and block off every single avenue that they can think of. The Minister said that the police are still unhappy, but that is not my understanding. In his important contribution, the hon. Member for Selby suggested that the police, in the guise of the assistant chief constable of Manchester who heads up police negotiations on such matters, are not against the measures proposed in our amendments. The Minister has not told us whether he will listen to advice arising from the meeting next week. I thought that he might have given some indication of that.

Kim Howells: One of the first things that I said was that I always listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Selby says, and will always pay attention to what he tells me.

Malcolm Moss: With all due respect to the Minister, that is not the same as telling the Committee that he will listen to whatever comes out of the meeting next week.

Kim Howells: If the hon. Gentleman wants to be pedantic, I will confirm that I will certainly listen to what comes out of the meeting. I may not agree with it, but I will listen.

Malcolm Moss: That the Minister will listen to the report that comes from the meeting is all that we can expect. All those people cannot be wrong. Whom has the Minister prayed in aid to support his argument? Where are the legions of people who say that the clause must not be amended? Nobody has written to me saying, ''I demand that designated premises licence holders should be as described in the Bill.'' All of the lobbying and representation that my hon. Friends and I have received has come from people saying, ''This is nonsense. We want to go back to what is in the White Paper''.
 We will make no further progress today. That is obvious from the Minister's defence of the position that he read out so well from the brief that he was given. He has been told not to give an inch and those 
 of us experienced in these matters know that that is the case this afternoon. However, we will certainly return to the subject and we wish the hon. Member for Selby and those people meeting in Manchester success in their negotiations. 
 Hopefully, common sense will prevail in the end because there is a problem. Many people are exercised about it and the Minister and his team should respond positively to it. Our amendments may not sort it out to their satisfaction. That is fine, but that does not mean that they have to defend what everyone else agrees is inadequate. We promise to return to the issue at a later stage, but at this juncture we wish Godspeed to the hon. Member for Selby and his meeting and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Applicant for premises licence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Field: I did not table an amendment to this clause, but subsection (2) refers to individuals not being able to apply for premises licences unless they are aged 18 or over. Does that apply to current licence regulations? I appreciate that 18 is the age at which alcohol can legally be purchased in this country, but common sense would suggest that having a premises licence would be an added burden. Has any thought been given to raising the age to 21, which must have applied at some point in the past?

Kim Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, after a great deal of pressure from the industry, we only recently reduced the age to 18.

Mark Field: As I said, although I did not table any amendments to the clause, I wished to gauge why 18 was the designated age. Will many teenagers apply for or receive a premises licence for the sale of alcohol? It sounds as if significant representations have been made by the alcohol and entertainment industry, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.

Kim Howells: I cannot remember whether I am making a speech or the hon. Gentleman is giving way to me.
 I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised—

Joe Benton: Order. You are responding, but other hon. Members also want to speak.

Mark Hoban: May I take the Minister back to subsection (1)? The House of Lords exempted churches, but other church premises such as church halls are not exempted and I cannot see who would be able to apply for a licence for a church hall or other church facilities. Paragraph (a) talks about people who carry on a business, but a caretaker or chairman of the management committee of a church hall would not be carrying on a business. I cannot see where, between
 paragraphs (a) and (j), somebody who held such a position would fit.

Kim Howells: I shall try to get a specific list to the hon. Gentleman. This matter has come up in previous debates.
 If a church hall, or a similar kind of hall, becomes a venue for the sale of alcohol, there is nothing to prevent someone on the committee becoming the personal licence holder. They would, of course, have to prove that they were capable. In most cases, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, when people at such venues want to sell alcohol they contact a local publican or someone who is already a personal licence holder to subcontract for them. As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent them doing so. Churches are not exempt under the Bill, except where there is entertainment. That is the difference. An applicant could be any person connected with the church hall, so I do not think that there would be a barrier to people doing as I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is no reason why the secretary of the chrysanthemum society, or anyone else involved, may not get an occasional licence to put on a reception or other event. 
 I cannot remember the exact question asked by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. [Hon. Members: ''The age limit.''] That is a timely reminder to the Committee that we are dealing not only with pubs but with cinemas. The cinema owners were keen that we should bring down the age to 18, because that would help them in many ways. Many young people are keen to enter that industry, from which they were barred as managers until we changed the age limit. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Application for premises licence

Mark Field: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in
clause 18, page 11, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(gg) whether the licensable activities will involve nudity or activities of a sexual nature,'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 124, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 9, after 'the', insert 'licensing statement or the'.
 Amendment No. 125, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 10, leave out 'and'.
 Amendment No. 126, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 12, at end insert 
 'and 
 (c) such conditions as may be required for the promotion of the licensing objectives, whether or not consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application.'. 
Amendment No. 127, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 24, leave out 'and'.
 Amendment No. 128, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 26, at end insert 
 'and 
 (iii) the conditions mentioned in subsection (2)(c) modified to such extent as the authority considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives;'.
 Amendment No. 192, in 
clause 22, page 14, line 8, after 'plays', insert 'or adult entertainments'.
 Amendment No. 193, in 
clause 22, page 14, line 9, after 'plays', insert 'or adult entertainment'.
 Amendment No. 194, in 
clause 22, page 14, line 10, after 'plays', insert 'or adult entertainment'.
 Amendment No. 129, in 
schedule 6, page 141, line 27, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert— 
 '(3) In paragraph 3A (exemption for certain entertainment premises from provisions relating to sex encounter establishments) paragraph (i) is repealed.'.

Mark Field: The clause deals with the application for the premises licence. Under subsection (4) there is an obligation to have an operating schedule, which is
''a document in the prescribed form and includes a statement''
 about various matters. Without the amendment, which would add the words 
''whether the licensable activities will involve nudity or activities of a sexual nature'',
 the applicants would not have to inform local authorities on the operating schedule whether their premises would show nudity or entertainment of a sexual nature, such as lap dancing. Most people consider sex licences as being prevalent—dare I say it—in my constituency in the past, but lap dancing has become a more familiar activity during recent years. 
 To help the Committee understand the amendments, some explanation of the existing legal framework might be useful. In London at present, a public entertainment licence under the London Government Act 1963 is required for premises to be used for the purposes of either public dancing, or music and public entertainment of a like kind. Entertainment such as striptease or lap dancing can be, and generally is, licensed under that provision. 
 Equally, it follows that premises that are licensed for the provision of public entertainment may provide entertainment such as lap dancing or striptease unless prevented from doing so by a condition attached to the licence. There are two ways forward. In the city of Westminster the rules of management—the standard conditions attached to all entertainment licences—say that entertainment involving nudity or sexual content may not be provided. Accordingly, premises that wish to provide such entertainment must apply for that standard rule to be waived. The council has a policy about how such applications will be considered and when they will be granted. Of course, like all such policies, it is subject to judicial review. 
 The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 introduced the licensing of sex establishments, such as sex shops and sex cinemas. In London, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1986 enabled licensing authorities to decide that as well as sex cinemas and sex shops, sex 
 encounter establishments should be licensed. A sex encounter establishment is a place where performances involving sexual stimulation or nudity, including peep-shows as well as striptease and lap dancing, are given. 
 The 1986 Act also provided that any premises that already had a public entertainment licence would not require a sex encounter establishment licence in addition. To avoid dual licensing, the public entertainment licensing regime would continue to apply for premises that already had a licence. I shall set out the proposed position under the Bill. The provision of regulated entertainment is a licensable activity, and a dance performance, as well as the playing of recorded music, will fall within the definition of regulated entertainment. In effect, striptease and lap dancing would be licensable activities under the Bill. 
 By virtue of the amendment made to the 1982 Act by paragraph 84(3) of schedule 6 to this Bill, premises licensed under what will become the Licensing Act 2003—assuming that the Bill is passed this Session—either for the provision of regulated entertainment or for the purposes of late-night refreshment, will not require a licence as a sex encounter establishment. The Bill will avoid the dual licensing issues to which I referred, by ensuring that striptease and lap dancing establishments are licensed under the Bill, not under other legislation. 
 It is unclear what the Government regard as the licensing authority's responsibility concerning the licensing of striptease clubs and lap dancing establishments. That is the main reason why we want an operating schedule—to highlight and alert the licensing authority. None of the licensing objectives other than that relating to the protection of children relates to such issues. Paragraph 8.49 of the Government's draft guidance states: 
''In general, licensing authorities should not use their powers under the 2003 Act to seek to impose conditions which censor the content of any form of regulated entertainment as defined in the Act.''
 We must remember that regulated entertainment would include lap dancing clubs and striptease. The draft guidance continues: 
''This is not a proper function of licensing law and . . . cannot be properly related to the licensing objectives. The contents of regulated entertainment is a matter which is addressed by existing laws governing indecency and obscenity. Where the concern is about protecting children, their access should be restricted, but no other limitation should normally be imposed.''
 I am talking about what the guidance means for the city of Westminster—specifically, but not exclusively, places such as Soho. Lap dancing clubs now appear in many of our big cities, and in many other boroughs besides the city of Westminster. A local authority would no longer be able to limit the numbers of premises providing entertainment of a sexual nature within certain parts of the city by attaching the type of condition that has already been mentioned to a licence. Except for situations involving access for children, it appears that a licensing authority can draw no distinction between premises that provide lap dancing and those that provide live music. For example, there will be no scope to say that a 
 residential area, or a location next to a church or a school, would not be suitable for lap dancing activity. 
 Our amendments would address that problem by requiring an applicant to state, when applying, whether his proposed activities would involve nudity or activity of a sexual nature. They would also enable the licensing authority to attach conditions to the licence, if they were required for the promotion of the licensing objectives, whether or not they were consistent with the activities proposed by the applicant. Amendment No. 123 would have the same equally desirable effect in other cases not necessarily involving a sexual element. 
 We hope that amending schedule 6 will mean that premises providing lap dancing, topless waitressing or other strip shows will be licensed under future legislation specifically relating to entertainment of a sexual nature. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the vacuum in the current arrangements.

Kim Howells: This is an important group of amendments, but I know that hon. Members want to get on to a later group, so I shall be brief. With the Committee's leave, I shall address amendments Nos. 123 and 129 first, because they concern nudity and sexual activity in licensed premises. Under the law, in most of the country, including London, public entertainment is simply licensed. If there are lap dancers, strippers or some form of simulated sexual display on a premises, it is the performance of dance that is licensed, not the nudity.
 However, in London boroughs—we return to Westminster again—other legislation has been adopted, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster started to explain. There, a sex encounter establishment licence is needed if the services or entertainment on those premises involves people exposing certain parts of their anatomy—I shall leave the details to hon. Members' imagination—or performing in a way that involves sexually stimulating the people admitted to the premises. That allows those boroughs to capture premises that are not putting on performances of music or dancing, but doing nothing more than providing sexual services. A sex encounter establishment licence cannot be required of premises that are licensed for public entertainment, or as a theatre or cinema. Such premises are already controlled, so it means the problems of such unusual premises solely relate to London ''dives'', which otherwise operate outside the law. 
 The rest of the country does not have that additional law, so, as in London, stripping and lap dancing are controlled by public entertainment licences. All premises in the country rely on the existing laws relating to indecent exposure to deal with performances that go too far. 
 We are not repealing the law relating to sex encounter establishments in certain London boroughs. Westminster and others will still be able 
 to require such licences for premises with no premises licence. Amendment No. 123 would go beyond the current arrangements, and require details of any nudity or sexual activity on the premises to be disclosed in the operating schedule. Why? Nudity per se is not a licensable activity. If someone wants to take his or her clothes off in public, the issue is whether they commit a criminal offence by indecently exposing themselves in public; if they do, the police can arrest them. We licence dancing, and through the premises licence it remains the case that lap dancing can be controlled to the extent necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Mark Hoban: I would not say that this debate is fascinating, because that might be an overstatement. However, it raises a concern in my mind that if a pub in Fareham got a licence for entertainment on the basis of dancing, and then decided to go in for lap dancing, would it have to apply for a variation to its operating schedule? In other words, can we be certain that people will not introduce covert lap dancing—if there is such a concept?

Kim Howells: People certainly could not put dancing on their operating schedule under the guise of it being some kind of traditional English folk dancing, and then suddenly start operating as a lap dancing establishment. The hon. Gentleman is right: there would have to be that degree of specificity.
 Under the Bill, if a club has lap dancing, which it would need to describe in its operating schedule because of the rules governing the performance of dance—as I have tried to explain—the objective of the protection of children from harm would arise. A condition that there should be no lap dancing or stripping during any period when children under the age of 18 are allowed on the premises could be imposed. I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members. 
 The clause does not address every form of entertainment that we can think of that might be in questionable taste, objectionable in some way to local councillors or residents, or just downright awful. I can see that there might be a concern that a fastidious licensing authority could seek to impose conditions on adult entertainments if it was not explicitly prevented from doing so. That is not a real fear: that could happen now, but I have not read any reports of its taking place. 
 I hope that we have made it clear that it is not our intention for licensing authorities to be free to use the powers in this Bill to interfere or intervene in all manner of activities that are better left either to other regimes of regulation or unregulated altogether. We do not want licensing authorities to use their powers to censor plays, or to prevent premises from being used to put on plays that the authorities find unacceptable. 
 I assure the Committee that we will make it clear in the statutory guidance, under the provisions that we have already debated, that extraneous conditions will not be permitted. Conditions may be attached to licences only where they are necessary for the promotion of one or more of the four licensing objectives. The conditions may therefore be appropriate in relation to the exclusion or restricted 
 access of children where adult entertainments are on offer. That would happen under the fourth licensing objective—that of protecting children from harm—but it would not be appropriate to impose conditions simply to spare the blushes of local residents, because that would not be one of the licensing objectives. 
 I am sure that if we had not preserved the provisions of the Theatres Act 1968, we would have been accused of bringing censorship into the Bill, and we would have had to debate the Government's decisions on theatres. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to think again about whether it is not sufficient to continue this provision into the new arrangements without pressing to a vote the idea of new and special provisions for the sort of adult entertainments that are put forward here. I hope that after those reassurances, he will withdraw his amendment.

Mark Field: I am reassured in part, but there is a concern that we might return to on Report. One of the chief objectives is to protect children from harm, and in our view it is not desirable in any way to allow local licensing authorities to have a regime of censorship. We hoped that the amendment would highlight striptease and other sexual entertainment, and indeed lap dancing bars, which are far more common and have caused great concern to residents groups in London and beyond, and that there would at least be some opportunity for a licensing authority to give serious consideration to the siting of such establishments. I appreciate the fact that, particularly outside London, there is a level of protection under current law. On the basis of our discussions, and as the Minister has satisfied us on at least some of our concerns, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in
clause 18, page 11, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) where the relevant licensable activities include the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, the maximum permitted occupancy of the premises,'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—Maximum permitted occupancy figure—
'(1) Where the relevant licensable activities include the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, a condition shall be attached to a premises licence specifying the maximum permitted occupancy figure, which must be specified on the premises licence and on the summary of the premises licence. 
 (2) The maximum permitted occupancy figure must be determined by the licensing authority in consultation with the police and the fire authority.'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendment and new clause 4 are designed to probe the Government. They deal with maximum occupancy levels for various establishments. I think that we would all agree that that is an important issue, particularly with regard to fire safety. It is important that appropriate measures are put in place, and that establishments have some clear understanding of what the maximum number of people in each establishment should be, whether those people are just drinking, dancing or being entertained.
 I understand that existing health and safety legislation obliges operators to calculate, and comply with, a maximum number of people that can be present. However, for licensed premises we understand that the requirement is rarely if ever enforced, whereas the use of capacity condition on the public entertainment licence is regularly checked. There seems to be an imbalance. 
 The pub that has entertainment—albeit small-scale entertainment—needs a public entertainment licence under existing law, and an entertainment licence under the new law. Its conditions will probably be set in terms of occupancy levels. On the other hand, if the pub does not have entertainment, even if it is incredibly popular it will not have the same restrictions on the number of people that might be present. The Minister referred earlier to what I think he called ''vertical drinking''.

Kim Howells: Vertical drinking establishments.

Malcolm Moss: I do not think that I have any of those in my constituency; no doubt they will arrive in due course.

Kim Howells: I bet you do.

Malcolm Moss: I presume that the vertical bit refers to the early part of the evening, and things become more horizontal later in the evening.
 It seems that there is a discrepancy in the provisions.

Mark Hoban: May I illuminate my hon. Friend about what vertical drinking establishments are, having just been illuminated myself? I assumed—naively, perhaps—that they were multi-storey pubs, but it turns out that they are pubs with very few chairs, so everyone has to stand up—rather like working men's clubs.

Malcolm Moss: My initial concept was of some vertically integrated facility where one could move from bar to bar on a sort of escalating—

Mark Field: Bar stool.

Malcolm Moss: I was talking about establishments that people go to just to drink. Those places are, no doubt, highly popular with young people, and attract huge numbers on Fridays and Saturdays. If there is no capacity limit for the people present, I am puzzled as to why that is deemed less unsafe than if someone were playing a guitar or piano in the corner. This is really a probing amendment to find out what the Government intend to do about the health and safety aspects of such establishments, many of which attract large numbers of people.

Nick Harvey: What discussions has the Minister had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the new fire regulations coming from his Department? Does the Minister think that those regulations will require capacities to be established for many premises—not just those that are licensed under the Bill? If fire-related capacity figures will be developed for premises, and premises are to be licensed under the proposed legislation, would it not make sense for such limits to be stated on premises licenses?

Mark Hoban: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who also mentioned capacity constraints. We referred to that matter earlier when we talked about the need for conditions attaching to entertainment licences. The Minister waxed lyrical about the importance of health and safety—he meant that some conditions relating to the number of people in a venue should be attached to entertainment licences.
 I have, in the past, gone unawares to various vertical drinking establishments, some of which are in this area of London. I used to work further up the river, off the Strand, where many of the pubs were multi-storey and vertical in that respect, and were also packed on a Friday night with people standing and drinking. Such places do not exist in the west end. Many new drinking establishments were created as part of regeneration campaigns. In Portsmouth, for example, there are many vertical drinking establishments in Gun Wharf quay, big places with many people that are packed on a Friday or Saturday night. 
 If we are to express our concern about venues that host entertainment, whether it be karaoke, football matches, music or dance, we must show the same degree of concern about pubs. It is correct that we consider stipulating maximum capacities for pubs. However, if it is not right for maximum capacities to be stipulated in a pub's operating schedule, we should consider why is it necessary to think about that in respect of entertainment licences, when existing health and safety regulations, which would cover such matters, are already in place.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that it might not be necessary to determine in the operating schedule whether an establishment is vertical or otherwise? If that is not done, one cannot know what is the capacity. A pub with lots of seats has a smaller capacity than a pub in which one is expected to remain vertical. Does my hon. Friend accept that that would be a problem with the amendment?

Mark Hoban: I think that we are using vertical drinking establishments as an example. A pub with lots of seats may have many people inside and the chairs may pose a greater risk to the drinking population in that pub than if it had none—it is a matter of understanding the various premises.

Malcolm Moss: Without wishing to be pedantic, I remind my hon. Friend that amendment No. 186, which would insert a new paragraph into the subsection dealing with the operating schedule, talks about the relevant licensable activities including
''the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises''.
 It does not mention pubs alone; it covers all places with an alcohol licence.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I was getting too carried away reminiscing about vertical drinking establishments I knew in my youth. Nevertheless, the issue remains the same: should maximum capacity limits be set for drinking
 establishments and premises serving drink? It is up to the Minister to rationalise why he opposes this amendment. He seemed reluctant to support our earlier amendments that would have relied on existing legislation to cover the health and safety aspects of such entertainment.

Kim Howells: I think that I misheard what the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago. Perhaps he thought that I was going to support the amendment.

Mark Hoban: No, I know that the Minister would not do that.

Kim Howells: The knife falls at 5 o'clock and we want to make progress on other matters. However, this issue is important and I want to make one thing clear: we have no objection to the concept of capacity limits. Indeed, the Bill will allow a capacity limit to be imposed if, in the view of the licensing authority after receiving representations from the experts—the police, fire and health and safety authorities—it is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The idea that a capacity limit is useful or necessary in all cases is wrong. I understand that capacity limits can be useful for nightclubs or the large pubs about which the hon. Gentleman has been waxing lyrical. I have no problem with that.
 Much has been made of the so-called vertical drinking establishment as the Bill has progressed. Indeed, capacity limits are often imposed through the existing licensing system on premises of that nature, which is only right and proper. 
 We firmly believe that there is no need for a quiet restaurant, small country pub or countless other premises to have a mandatory capacity limit in all cases. If a mandatory capacity limit is imposed, the inevitable consequence will be increased costs to those running such venues as they would have to employ staff to count people in and out. That would be a big burden to impose on nightclubs. We should be slow to impose additional burdens without justification. 
 The amendments would strip the new system of much of its in-built flexibility to tailor itself to individual circumstances. When it is necessary to have a capacity limit, the Bill allows that to happen and when it is not necessary—this is for the experts—the Bill does not require one to be imposed. 
 We are keen on greater flexibility for licensed premises and for capacity limits to be imposed only when necessary. That is why the Bill reflects the current system.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister is coming to an end and I do not want to delay him longer than necessary. He mentioned that existing legislation had provision for capacity limits, but that is not the point. The Committee needs to know where in this Bill it says that the limits can be imposed. That is the important point.

Kim Howells: As I said, the licensing authority consults its experts—the responsible bodies that we spoke about. If those experts, whether the police, the health and safety people or the fire authority decide that a capacity limit should be imposed, they can set one.
 I have been touring the country looking at various types of establishments. For example, in seaside towns at certain times of the year, an upstairs room in a pub might be used for entertainment or as an overflow area. They are often subject to strict limits that are strictly policed because of fire problems and somebody must be employed to click people in and out ensure that the limit is not exceeded. If it is, those responsible can be fined a large sum or even sent to jail for putting customers in danger. We are certainly not trying to exclude the ability to set capacity limits if the licensing authority sees fit. 
 The Bill is intended to be flexible—licensing authorities will be able to attach capacity limits as conditions to licences when expert opinion believes that is necessary. Given that other controls are also in place, we certainly do not want to place undue burdens on the industry. The Bill contains appropriate safeguards to ensure public safety, prevent crime, disorder and nuisance, and protect children from harm. The hon. Member for North Devon asked about the examination of fire regulations being undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I can reassure him that we are in full discussion with the ODPM, because these are important matters for protecting the public. That has got to be the primary concern, but, as I said in earlier debates, we must ensure that there is no abuse of powers that might arise as a consequence of new fire regulations, which might give the opportunity for stamping out or dissuading the holder of licences from putting on live entertainment. We must get the balance right.

Malcolm Moss: I refer to the previous example that the Minister gave, which was that of a pub in a seaside resort opening a room upstairs and of what then takes place. That is an example of what happens under existing legislation, not what will happen when the Bill reaches the statute book. The Minister has made the case that there is provision, particularly when the police and the fire authority get involved, for them to impose conditions. On the basis of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 184, in
clause 18, page 11, line 36, leave out 
 'an applicant to advertise his application' 
 and insert 
 'a licensing authority to advertise each application it receives'.
 The amendment is simple. It would remove the requirement that the applicant advertises his application and replaces it with a requirement that the licensing authority advertise the application. There is a good reason for that. I shall illustrate it by reference to planning applications and applications for the storage of lorries on premises. The current position with planning applications is that most local authorities voluntarily advertise them together in the public notices pages of local newspapers. Certainly my own does and I know of many others that do. I am not sure whether that is voluntary or whether it is a requirement.

Kevan Jones: It is statutory.

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Therefore there is a precedent for what I am proposing. The situation with applications for the storage of lorries is that the applicant must place the advertisement in a newspaper that circulates within the area.
 In one case in my constituency, the advertisement was placed by the applicant in The News (Portsmouth), which circulates on the island, albeit not widely. All planning applications are advertised by the Isle of Wight county council in the pages of the Isle of Wight County Press. That is where people tend to look for such applications. Of course, licensing applications may be advertised in both organs, but certainly in the Isle of Wight County Press.

Jim Knight: I am trying to help move things on. Will the hon. Gentleman explain his amendment in the context of subsection (5)(a), which states:
''in a manner which is prescribed and is likely to bring the application to the attention of the interested parties likely to be affected by it'',
 because it would seem possible to prescribe that that should be advertised in the Isle of Wight County Press, not the other newspaper that we talked about.

Andrew Turner: It would indeed, if the Minister could go into such detail, but it would be difficult for him to find a form of words that specifies such matters. Indeed, in the case of the application for the storage of lorries, the courts found that it was hard to find a form of words that would specify which newspaper would be appropriate. Moreover, it seemed to be sensible that the advertisements should be consolidated by the licensing authority, so that it would not only be less expensive in the long run, but make it easier for members of the public to find them, rather than have them separated and spread out in bits and pieces over the public notices pages, which sometimes happens in local newspapers. It is a simple proposal and I hope that the Minister agrees with it.

Kim Howells: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment may have been tabled with the intention of reducing the financial burden on applicants and letting more people know that the application has been made. However, I fear that it would not achieve that. Licensing authorities would need to recover costs incurred through advertising those applications and, given the Government's intention of setting fees at a level that would allow full recovery of costs for licensing authorities, additional burdens on the licensing authority would result in a general increase in the licensing fees, which would end up being shouldered by the consumer, although the initial outlay will be for the industry.
 The draft guidance states that a short summary of the application, setting out the location of the premises, the proposed licensable activities, the proposed access for children and the proposed hours of opening should be published in two local newspapers. However—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with this—the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government have advised us, via the advisory group that has been assisting the 
 Department for Culture, Media and Sport with the Bill, that their surveys show that adverts in local papers are not always an effective way of advertising licensing applications. People often dispose of such papers, especially free ones, having glanced at a few of the articles, rather than reading them thoroughly and taking note of the advertisements and announcements. 
 The LGA and ALG studies show that the best way to advertise licensing applications and the method most likely to prompt interest and comment is to advertise using signs, prominently displayed immediately outside the premises in question. The Government are happy to accept the advice of the LGA and the ALG and as such, we are content to reflect that in the guidance and are minded to do so in secondary legislation.

Mark Hoban: I am concerned about signs being placed outside premises affected. That works for planning applications to an extent, but given the impact that a new pub could have on the wider community, simply posting a sign outside the site of the new pub would not be sufficient to bring it to the attention of the wider community. Given that one only has a hearing by the licensing committee if one receives representations from local people objecting to an application, it would seem that the widest circulation possible is more likely to generate a genuine reaction from the community to a licensing application.

Kim Howells: Absolutely. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of that. There would be no compulsion on applicants only to advertise in that way. They can do it in newspapers and they may be required to do so. The hon. Gentleman is right: in certain circumstances there must be the maximum possible advertising. We think that the provisions should significantly reduce the cost to applicants and ensure that local residents are better informed. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I welcome the proposal for notices, which I take from the Minister's words to be additional to the advertisements in local newspapers.

Kim Howells: Yes.

Andrew Turner: I do not think that he has dealt with whether the advertisements should be consolidated or otherwise, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Determination of application for

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in
clause 19, page 12, line 6, at end insert— 
 '( ) Where an application for a premises licence is received by a licensing authority but— 
 (a) it is not made in accordance with section 18, or 
 (b) the authority is not satisfied under subsection (1)(b), 
 the authority shall return the application to the applicant indicating its reasons for doing so.'. 
Clause 18 deals with what a council must do if an application is made that complies with all the rules and regulations regarding the form of application but does not provide for what actions the council must take when the applicant fails to comply. The amendment would ensure that in such cases the authority returns the application to the applicant with some reasons as to why it has not found favour.

Kim Howells: I was a little confused. I thought that the hon. Gentleman mentioned clause 18, but we are debating clause 19.

Malcolm Moss: Clause 19, I am sorry.

Kim Howells: Clause 118—

Martin Linton: Amendment No. 188.

Kim Howells: I am getting confused, too. It is getting late in the day, though. Amendment No. 188 is unnecessary. It would insert a requirement in clause 19 that any applications received by the licensing authority that were either not amended in accordance with clause 18 or had not met the requirement under clause 18 to advertise an application and give notice of it to responsible authorities, would be returned by the authority to the applicant, setting out the reasons for the rejection of the application.
 The provisions already contained in the Bill achieve that result. Clause 19(1) already has the effect that if an application does not meet the specified requirements, no further elaboration is needed. As a public authority, the licensing authority must advise the applicant that the application is not compliant and identify why it has formed that view. There is no reason to state that on the face of the Bill, and I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a Division.

Malcolm Moss: On the basis of that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 185, in
clause 19, page 12, line 29, at end insert— 
 '( ) to state that (in its opinion) any of the activities to which the application refers is not licensable;'.
 Again, the amendment is simple and, I hope, self-explanatory. It would give a fifth option to the local authority in how to deal with an application. To avoid falling foul of the law, some applicants may make applications for activities for which it is unnecessary to make an application. 
 Given the breadth and comprehensiveness of the Bill, it is hard to think of examples of such activities. However, I am sure that sooner or later, someone will come up with one. It may be a question of whether a church is a church or a church hall, for example, because some churches are used as church halls as well as churches. That may be something that an applicant, being an honest sort of chap, would want to draw to the attention of the licensing authority. The authority would be prepared to say that in this case it recognised that the space that was being used was the church part 
 of the space, rather than the church hall part, so it was unnecessary to make such an application. 
 The local authority should have the option to state that any of the activities to which the application refers is not licensable. I put that option in where one might otherwise think that it exists because subsection (3) states that the authority ''must'' take one of the steps mentioned in subsection (4). In other words, it cannot say that the activity is not licensable when it has received an application, unless we give it the power so to do.

Kim Howells: Whether an activity is licensable or not is a matter not of opinion but of fact. If an application were made for a premises licence to cover an activity not set out in clause 1, it would be null and void. The licensing authority has no power in law to license an activity that is not licensable. Making a statement about those activities cannot alter that fact in any way whatsoever.
 It follows that the amendment serves no purpose other than to create confusion, which we can do without at this time of day. It will be important that operating schedules include general information about activities that are not licensable because it will inform decisions about the steps that need to be taken on those premises to promote a licensing objective. For example, general information about the service of table meals, which is not licensable, or the fact that gambling takes place, which is licensable under relevant legislation, will be important to decisions taken about the protection of children from harm. However, the provision of that information would not make those activities licensable in the Bill. 
 In light of those comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment to a Division.

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in
clause 19, page 13, leave out line 17.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 191, in
clause 36, page 21, leave out line 35.

Malcolm Moss: I shall be quick. Clause 19(10) states that
''In discharging its duty under subsection (2) or (3)(b), a licensing authority may grant a licence under this section subject to different conditions in respect of—
different parts of the premises concerned''.
 Amendment No. 190 would delete the last line. It is a probing amendment. If licences are issued for different parts and different activities, how are people to know what is allowed in which part? It will be confusing.

Kim Howells: When there have been relevant representations leading to a hearing, one of the courses open to the licensing authority in determining an application is to attach conditions to the premises licence. Those conditions, however, must be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. There will not be any scope for the
 imposition of blanket aspirational conditions, which is what the hon. Gentleman was hinting at, that are not appropriate to individual premises, or which cannot be given practical effect.
 A crucial element in the system, allowing licensing authorities properly to target particular concerns and to attach appropriate controls, is the ability to impose different conditions to different parts of licensed premises. Far from leading to complication, that will ensure that the industry is not burdened with unnecessary conditions. I will give an example of how that would work in practice. 
 Let us suppose that, under the new regime, a typical pub in a residential area, which has a beer garden that is popular on summer evenings, applies to open until 1 am at weekends. Following a representation by a local resident on the grounds of public nuisance, saying that the sound of conversation, laughter and occasional raised voices would not be acceptable in the early hours, the licensing authority convenes a hearing. Following the hearing, it decides to impose conditions on the licence, restricting the hours of opening. Under the Bill, it is open to the licensing authority to agree to the opening times sought in the main building of the pub, possibly subject to conditions to minimise noise nuisance such as keeping the windows shut late at night, while at the same time imposing a condition restricting the opening times for the beer garden to, say, 11 pm. Applying that flexible approach satisfies the concerns of the local resident and would be an acceptable compromise for the premises licence holder. 
 Without that flexibility, the options open to the licensing authority in balancing the competing concerns would have been limited to rejecting the whole or part of the application, either granting a licence that provided for the longer hours both inside and out, to the potential detriment of the local resident, or imposing shorter hours across the whole premises. I am sure that hon. Members can think of examples where similar circumstances would exist. 
 The ability to impose different conditions to different parts of licensed premises provides a degree of flexibility that will prove valuable both to the authority itself and to the industry, enabling the appropriate conditions to be attached as circumstances require. I therefore hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Grant or rejection of application

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 195, in
clause 23, page 14, line 16, leave out 'forthwith' and insert 
 'within two working days of the decision to grant'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 196, in
clause 23, page 14, line 28, leave out 'forthwith' and insert 
 'within two working days of the decision to reject'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendment hinges on the definition and interpretation of the word ''forthwith'' in clause 23. Our amendment would replace ''forthwith'' with the words
''within two working days of the decision to grant''. 
If there is a strict definition of ''forthwith'', I should like to hear it. At the moment, it can be interpreted in many different ways and we want to balance the needs of the businesses that are applying for the licences. I should like a quick and easy answer.

Kim Howells: The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' defines forthwith as ''without delay''. In legislation such as this, words have to be given their natural ordinary meaning, so that is exactly what it means.

Kevan Jones: Withdraw forthwith.

Malcolm Moss: That is good advice; I think I shall.
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [1 and 3 April 2003], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 23 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Surrender of premises licence

Amendment made: No.12, in 
clause 28, page 16, line 17, leave out from 'he' to end of line 21 and insert 
 'may give the relevant licensing authority a notice to that effect'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 29 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Notification of change of name or address

Amendment made: No.13, in 
clause 33, page 19, line 22, leave out subsections (6) and (7).—[Dr. Howells.] 
 Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 34 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. Kemp.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Tuesday 29 April at five minutes to Nine o'clock.